But, I don’t know where that “balance” might be.

This issue also brings up the “militarization” of police departments around the country, via their getting surplus, heavy duty military hardware–weapons, vehicles, and other equipment–and their tendency to want to–once they have all that fancy equipment and firepower–use it, and whether such overwhelming force and firepower, such overkill is, in all cases, warranted in a civilian setting.

There have been a number of cases around the country here SWAT team raids have gone bad, and innocent civilians have been “accidentally” killed. Do we want more of that?

While we’re at it, lets also talk about how the Obama Administration allowed/encouraged all sorts of civilian, governmental entities–large and small-reportedly more than 70 of them–to “arm up,” to create and/or expand the number of their armed agents/forces, and to procure and stockpile arms and large amounts of ammunition, with one 2016 report saying that there were more than 200,000 armed non-Defense Federal officers now carrying weapons (by contrast the U.S. Marine Corps had, then, less than 200,000 members). *

Moreover, according to a 2016 report, Federal officers with firearms and arrest powers jumped from 75,400 in 1996 to over 200,000 in 2016.

Who knows how many such officers there are today?

So, does, for instance, the Department of Education need pump shotguns, does the National Bureau of Standards need armed officers, does the Social Security Administration need lots of armed agents to fend off angry geezers?

Something is out of whack here.

* See,for instance this analysis at https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Oversight_TheMilitarizationOfAmerica_06102016.pdf

Hey, people are clamoring for the authorities to “do something,” well, here it is.

After all, as we’ve later found out in the case of these shootings, and previous ones as well, a lot of these mass shooters had been giving off all sorts of signals that—if heeded—could have given people a pretty reasonable chance of preventing these shootings by staging some sort of “intervention,” these people’s guns could have been taken away from them, and they could have been given the mental health and/or addiction treatment they pretty obviously needed—likely whether they liked it or not.

But, on further reflection, such laws are not a good idea.

As I understand these proposals—some form of these Red Flag laws already on the books in a reported 17 states—all that needs to happen to trigger a confrontation and confiscation of one’s weapons is an allegation from somebody—apparently just about anybody—and—boom—the cops, or perhaps even a SWAT team—are at your door, and taking your guns and your Second Amendment and other Constitutionally guaranteed Rights away—even though you have not confronted an accuser, not had your day in court, not committed a crime, you have not been convicted of anything, and your “day in court” could be many months away—with you having to spend a likely large amount of money and effort to hire a lawyer to present your case, and to prove you “innocence.”

Given all of the corruption, misconduct, illegality, and incompetence we have seen by the Federal government—and local governments as well, the viciousness of today’s politics, and the attacks from the Left and the lengths to which they are willing to go, it is crystal clear that such a system is open to huge abuse—all it takes is an angry ex-wife, a “concerned” neighbor, an enemy at work, someone who doesn’t like your politics, or simply a prankster making that call, and you are subject to a raid by a SWAT team, your house potentially trashed, and your dog and possibly you or others in your household injured or even killed.

This, before even considering all of the major Constitutional issues involved in this kind of preemptive law/procedure, and its potential to be the “nose under the tent” procedure/law which establishes the precedent that will lead—sooner or later—to general gun registration and, ultimately, to nation-wide confiscation of everyone’s guns and the disarming of the population.

Find some other way, one that doesn’t infringe on citizen’s Second Amendment and other Rights, or at least conforms to their protections.

In most states, there are federal no-gun venues which include all federal buildings and some open areas such as Post Office parking lots. There are places where state laws prohibit carry such as schools, hospitals, sporting events, bars, etc., and usually any building owner can post “no guns allowed” if they choose; however, if the building isn’t a specified prohibited zone by statute, but rather by ownership, the owner can only ask the carrier to leave. If the carrier refuses, they are subject to arrest for trespassing and nothing more. Consequently, I disregard such signs routinely and if asked to leave, which has never happened, I will cheerfully comply. A well-concealed pistol should be, well, undetectable.

Frankly, while I’m opposed to gun control rules and I believe gun free zones are shooting galleries, it’s unwise to carry openly. If you are paying for gas when the store’s robbed, the first person shot is the one carrying a gun on his/her belt.

All the “terrorist” attacks would lead to Hussein or somebody declaring Martial law, remember that scenario.

What happened to it? Something interrupted it. Now we have “domestic terrorism”…

Recall that Donald Rumsfeld declared that the Pentagon had lost 2.3 ish trillion in funding. Eh? DO people realize what that means? The Deep State can only exist if it has funding for licit and illicit activities. ANd if they have funding that Congress doesn’t know it… that makes it a whole lot easier. How many American citizens can you torture and kill with 2.3 trillion?

I, personally, can think of a lot of ways to use that money given even my limited capabilities. Imagine what the DS can do with it.

This was the day before 9/11. September 10th that Rumsfeld got on air to talk about this. Then tomorrow the Pentagon gets hits and all the internal investigators and their records… went bye bye. Haha. That’s so coincidental, isn’t it.

Nothing awful would happen to us because of the government and the DS right. Nothing bad happens.

Cannot Be Held Liable. This is in Federal Law. You have to appeal to a federal arbitration court (staffed by IRS type bureaucrats who you know are just your lovable neighbors… like your Park Rangers putting a rod to veterans when closing public land…) to get any kind of “restitution”.

Tobacco and sin companies never had this immunity. Nor does Walmart or other “smaller cap” corps.

These corps are vulnerable and would never have done these stupidities, had it not been for the marketing power of Facebook and social media pressuring them at the highest levels.

This creates easy evidence of said corporation doing something pro active that may lead to damages. Instead of negligence, which is harder to prove. If said suit is tied with “violation of Constitutional rights”, then it can be upgraded to a class action, where multiple people can sue for damages, even though they may not have exercised their rights so to speak at the time.

Corporations can be hurt, like tobacco, just for covering up certain biased information in their research that showed that cigarettes were “healthy”. If enough damage accumulates, and evidence there is that the corporation was negligent or actively covering stuff up that lead to the damages, then it is easier to claim damages in civil court. But that’s why they have signs. Signs are not in itself the reason why tobacco companies were liable.

That’s why Gaystapo puts up sting operations. The legal result is not guaranteed but… it can become a legal basis for prosecution at least.

Putting people into compromising situations is how you Lawfare them to death. Remember Margaret? They may still get off, as the Christian bakers. But the second time? The Third? The Fourth? Heh. Companies need their lawyers for more than this waste of time.

That’s why FBI keeps “asking you questions” and asking you “do you remember”, all while not keeping it recorded. They have the authority to make stuff up from their notes, but citizens need actual evidence to make a claim.

Fishing expeditions are not guaranteed, that is why they need to keep fishing.

Can that ejectee sue with any chance of success?

It has to be directly tied to damage and loss of life. Which is to say, if as a result of this case, the shooting happened on that day, then it would be hard for lawyers to lawfare themselves out of that defense wise. But the chances are that is so low, that the corporate lawyers probably did a weasel and said “signs are ok”.